Not even remotely. The luminous landscape comparisons were complete rubbish. The best prints that I've seen from digital imagers, including modern full-frame 3

Not even remotely. The luminous landscape comparisons were complete rubbish. The best prints that I've seen from digital imagers, including modern full-frame 35mm digital cameras, look miserably blurry if you approach the print closely enough to read the caption. From 15 feet away, they look nice and sharp... my prints from 4x5 look every bit as sharp from 15 feet away until you stick your nose on the print -- and all you keep finding is more detail. The other thing that the digital fanputzes ignore is that with the exception of the Foveon, DIGITAL SENSORS ARE MONOCRHOMATIC. They invent most of their color information through interpolation because THEY CANNOT RECORD COLOR. If you want high ISO ability, digital rules the roost. If you want fast turnaround, you go with digital. If you want the best color and maximal detail, you use film -- the bigger the better. Even Jack Dykinga, who switched to using multiple exposures stitched together for his commercial work, says that for fine art images, he still uses 4x5 film, because not even stitching 15-20 full 35mm frame digital images together can match an image from a 4x5 sheet film, especially if you use a drum scanner.